These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice. The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events: firstly, the House Republicans' decision to whip votes against Obama's stimulus package so as to produce a unanimous nay vote, and secondly, the Administration's decision to try and kneecap Rush Limbaugh.

Nonetheless, measurements of the partisan split in support for the President, as Pew Research has done here (they found a record partisan split in Obama's approval ratings, with 88 percent of Democrats but just 27 percent of Republicans approving of Obama's performance) are not quite as straightforward as they might seem. This is because partisan identification is at least somewhat fluid. The Republicans, in particular, have lost quite a bit of support over the past several years; those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters identified as Republican when Pew conducted this survey in March, which is roughly as low as that total has ever gotten.

We see some evidence of these effects in the comparison of Obama's numbers to those of George W. Bush's at a comparable point in his presidency. Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1178-1.gif

A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.

SBK

04-06-2009, 04:23 PM

Are liberals surprised that conservatives don't like Obama or something?

jAZ

04-06-2009, 04:37 PM

Are liberals surprised that conservatives don't like Obama or something?

He (they) are pointing out that any attempt to bludgeon Obama as a failed "bipartisan" leader are relatively baseless (though sure to be repeated) because those Obama has converted nearly all of the "bipartisan" Republicans to his side, leaving only the hardliners who would bat every hand away that wasn't carrying the most extreme partisan GOP agenda in it.

RealSNR

04-06-2009, 05:00 PM

He (they) are pointing out that any attempt to bludgeon Obama as a failed "bipartisan" leader are relatively baseless (though sure to be repeated) because those Obama has converted nearly all of the "bipartisan" Republicans to his side, leaving only the hardliners who would bat every hand away that wasn't carrying the most extreme partisan GOP agenda in it.They only label the two sides though. Shouldn't they ask ask about moderate voters, which outnumber both Democrats and Republicans? If Obama has converted so many Republicans, wouldn't they have switched parties? The question still asks "do you consider yourself a Republican?"

SBK

04-06-2009, 05:00 PM

He (they) are pointing out that any attempt to bludgeon Obama as a failed "bipartisan" leader are relatively baseless (though sure to be repeated) because those Obama has converted nearly all of the "bipartisan" Republicans to his side, leaving only the hardliners who would bat every hand away that wasn't carrying the most extreme partisan GOP agenda in it.

You're so full of it.

Bipartisanship is not when Republicans cave to Democratic policy or wishes, it's when both sides come to a compromise.

Dr. Van Halen

04-06-2009, 05:12 PM

You're so full of it.

Bipartisanship is not when Republicans cave to Democratic policy or wishes, it's when both sides come to a compromise.

I don't think you read either his post or the original post.

The point of the article is that it is difficult to identify "partisanship" anymore. People don't stick with one party for life like they used to. The number of people identifying themselves as Republicans is down to 24% ... these are the hard-line Republicans who are less than likely to be uncritical of the president. So when we say 77% of Republicans disapprove of President Obama, that is only 77% of 24%. There's a big chunk of people no longer claiming to be Republicans.

In olden days more Moderates were identifying themselves as Republicans, which made the numbers slant more in favor of Democrats (sometimes)(that's the theory, at least).

I, for one, don't buy it. Or, at least, I don't think this research will translate into results at the polls.

Reaper16

04-06-2009, 05:14 PM

This is shocking.

jAZ

04-06-2009, 05:36 PM

You're so full of it.

Bipartisanship is not when Republicans cave to Democratic policy or wishes, it's when both sides come to a compromise.

Let me try this again.

If only 24% of voters still claim to be Repubilcan, and as such, those last remaining 24% are the most partisan and unwilling to comprimise on issues. And like many here, they don't want any version of policy that looks anything like what Obama wants. They want their version, and would rather stand firm on ideology than waterdown a comprimise.

If that's all that's left of "Republicans", there will be an appearance of failure on Obama's part to appear to "Republicans".

SBK

04-06-2009, 06:41 PM

Let me try this again.

If only 24% of voters still claim to be Repubilcan, and as such, those last remaining 24% are the most partisan and unwilling to comprimise on issues. And like many here, they don't want any version of policy that looks anything like what Obama wants. They want their version, and would rather stand firm on ideology than waterdown a comprimise.

If that's all that's left of "Republicans", there will be an appearance of failure on Obama's part to appear to "Republicans".

I thought you were referring to Congress, not the public.

wild1

04-06-2009, 06:43 PM

Let me try this again.

If only 24% of voters still claim to be Repubilcan, and as such, those last remaining 24% are the most partisan and unwilling to comprimise on issues.

Or it could be that those actually holding core conservative positions are those who no longer identify as republican, and the ones who still do are conservative lite or centrists with more traditional affiliations.

BucEyedPea

04-06-2009, 07:08 PM

Is like the partisan gap that Bush had with the left?

StcChief

04-06-2009, 07:10 PM

Obama still has to do the job. ... I'm luke warm, don't like the overspending.

jAZ

04-06-2009, 10:56 PM

I thought you were referring to Congress, not the public.

Republicans in Congress play to their base, so it's not unrelated.

jAZ

04-06-2009, 11:00 PM

Or it could be that those actually holding core conservative positions are those who no longer identify as republican, and the ones who still do are conservative lite or centrists with more traditional affiliations.

Doesn't matter who or how they left. Their departure left only 24% claiming the identify of Republican. When the R-part of "bipartisan" is built on the most hardline R's in the party, there's no comprimise that is acceptable.

SBK

04-06-2009, 11:02 PM

Republicans in Congress play to their base, so it's not unrelated.

Not really, you see all the Tea Parties being planned? Those are less about Obama than you think.

Jenson71

04-06-2009, 11:03 PM

They only label the two sides though. Shouldn't they ask ask about moderate voters, which outnumber both Democrats and Republicans? If Obama has converted so many Republicans, wouldn't they have switched parties? The question still asks "do you consider yourself a Republican?"

It does show 57% of Independents approving.

blaise

04-07-2009, 07:02 AM

Aren't these numbers a little like the college basketball rankings that come out after the second week of the season?

RINGLEADER

04-07-2009, 07:52 AM

He (they) are pointing out that any attempt to bludgeon Obama as a failed "bipartisan" leader are relatively baseless (though sure to be repeated) because those Obama has converted nearly all of the "bipartisan" Republicans to his side, leaving only the hardliners who would bat every hand away that wasn't carrying the most extreme partisan GOP agenda in it.

If you're in power you should only be bi-partisan when it fits your political goals. The fact that Obama is or isn't viewed as bi-partisan doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

Frankly, partisanship is what keeps both sides honest.

RINGLEADER

04-07-2009, 07:52 AM

Aren't these numbers a little like the college basketball rankings that come out after the second week of the season?

This too.

patteeu

04-07-2009, 09:21 AM

He (they) are pointing out that any attempt to bludgeon Obama as a failed "bipartisan" leader are relatively baseless (though sure to be repeated) because those Obama has converted nearly all of the "bipartisan" Republicans to his side, leaving only the hardliners who would bat every hand away that wasn't carrying the most extreme partisan GOP agenda in it.

That's laughable spin. The more spin-free version of this is that Silver is explaining how the unprecedented results of this Pew poll (which attempts to measure partisanship) may overstate that level of partisanship to an unspecified degree.

There's no doubt at all that Obama has failed as a bipartisan leader, it's just a question of how badly he's failed. I don't think he ever planned to succeed. Like so many other things, it was just something he said on the campaign trail to harvest the feel good vote.

These are highly partisan times in America. "Bipartisanship" (or, in the Obama nomenclature, "post-partisanship") makes for a catchy campaign slogan, but is difficult to execute upon in practice. The White House's aspirations (or pretense) of running a bipartisan administration died a quick and ugly death with two events: firstly, the House Republicans' decision to whip votes against Obama's stimulus package so as to produce a unanimous nay vote, and secondly, the Administration's decision to try and kneecap Rush Limbaugh.

Nonetheless, measurements of the partisan split in support for the President, as Pew Research has done here (they found a record partisan split in Obama's approval ratings, with 88 percent of Democrats but just 27 percent of Republicans approving of Obama's performance) are not quite as straightforward as they might seem. This is because partisan identification is at least somewhat fluid. The Republicans, in particular, have lost quite a bit of support over the past several years; those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters identified as Republican when Pew conducted this survey in March, which is roughly as low as that total has ever gotten.

We see some evidence of these effects in the comparison of Obama's numbers to those of George W. Bush's at a comparable point in his presidency. Obama and Bush had roughly the same level of support among members of their own party (88 percent for Obama, 87 percent for Bush) and roughly the same level of support among unaffiliated voters (57 percent for Obama, 56 for Bush). Bush, however, had more support from the opposition party (36 percent of Democrats versus 27 percent of Republicans). And yet Obama, not Bush, had the higher overall approval rating, because Democrats are a significantly larger constituency than Republicans.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1178-1.gif

A more telling measure might be to see a breakdown in support by voters who identify themselves as conservative, moderate or liberal. These categories are somewhat fluid too -- but less so than partisan ID.

:spock:

I think it's a little early for this sort of poll, seeing how Obama is just in the early stages of his Oval Office partisan political tenure.

BucEyedPea

04-07-2009, 12:54 PM

:spock:

I think it's a little early for this sort of poll, seeing how Obama is just in the early stages of his Oval Office partisan political tenure.

They're desperate to show socialism works. :evil:

Direckshun

04-07-2009, 02:01 PM

There's no doubt at all that Obama has failed as a bipartisan leader, it's just a question of how badly he's failed. I don't think he ever planned to succeed. Like so many other things, it was just something he said on the campaign trail to harvest the feel good vote.

Wanna try that one again, patty boy?

jAZ

04-07-2009, 05:20 PM

this Pew poll ... may overstate that level of partisanship to an unspecified degree
No, he says:

"those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters "

You don't get political concessions leading to bi-partisan support for the sort of major legislation Obama is working on when one party has only the "hardened -- and very conservative" members left.

patteeu

04-07-2009, 06:11 PM

No, he says:

"those persons who continue to identify as Republicans are a hardened -- and very conservative -- lot. Just 24 percent of voters "

You don't get political concessions leading to bi-partisan support for the sort of major legislation Obama is working on when one party has only the "hardened -- and very conservative" members left.

Republicans are 42% of the Senate and 41% of the House. Obama, the failed bipartisan POTUS, was opposed by 93% of the Republican Senators and 100% of the House Republicans on his save-the-economy stimulus bill.

Whether the Pew statistics adequately demonstrate it or not, Barack Obama has failed to produce on his campaign promise of bipartisanship. If bipartisanship is hopeless, as you suggest, I guess BO shouldn't have been making promises he couldn't keep. But of course, we all know that he doesn't worry too much about backtracking on his campaign statements.

wild1

04-07-2009, 06:36 PM

Republicans are 42% of the Senate and 41% of the House. Obama, the failed bipartisan POTUS, was opposed by 93% of the Republican Senators and 100% of the House Republicans on his save-the-economy stimulus bill.

Whether the Pew statistics adequately demonstrate it or not, Barack Obama has failed to produce on his campaign promise of bipartisanship. If bipartisanship is hopeless, as you suggest, I guess BO shouldn't have been making promises he couldn't keep. But of course, we all know that he doesn't worry too much about backtracking on his campaign statements.

Bipartisanship, in an honest form, is not about producing a token percentage of charity admissions to the room where Reid and Pelosi draft the direction of this country, like some corporate diversity program the only purpose of which is PR.

It's about the inclusion of alternative viewpoints in policy-making. Not suffering an occasional airing of them before they are summarily disregarded.

If a few RINOs decide to go along with the Marxist agenda, out of self-preservation or whatever reason, that does not constitute bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is including the other side in crafting the agenda, not scooping up one or two defectors and then rubber-stamping it as 'bipartisan'.

jAZ

04-07-2009, 06:54 PM

Republicans are 42% of the Senate and 41% of the House. Obama, the failed bipartisan POTUS, was opposed by 93% of the Republican Senators and 100% of the House Republicans on his save-the-economy stimulus bill.

Whether the Pew statistics adequately demonstrate it or not, Barack Obama has failed to produce on his campaign promise of bipartisanship. If bipartisanship is hopeless, as you suggest, I guess BO shouldn't have been making promises he couldn't keep. But of course, we all know that he doesn't worry too much about backtracking on his campaign statements.

I'm explaining the point of the article, to a rather amazing display of ignoring-the-point in favor of hurl-the-anti-obama-talking-points.

Obama can't promise the Republicans will agree to a comprimise. He can only promise to try. Which he did.

I'm quite seriously when I say that Obama's biggest mistake was including any tax cuts in his first simulus proposal. He should have gone 100% spending, and then negotiated in the 40% or so tax cuts he started with from the beginning.

He lost the ability to demonstrate for the public the concession he made from the beginning to the tax-cut-GOP.

He treated the country like they were adults and would credit him for the gesture he made without being asked.

Guys like you prove the world isn't as adult as he gave credit for. But it seems most American's think your assessment is off the mark.

jAZ

04-07-2009, 06:57 PM

It's about the inclusion of alternative viewpoints in policy-making. Not suffering an occasional airing of them before they are summarily disregarded.

You mean like including tax cuts into a stimulus propsal when tax cuts have the least stimuls effect, because Republicans worship monotheist tax god?

wild1

04-07-2009, 07:33 PM

You mean like including tax cuts into a stimulus propsal when tax cuts have the least stimuls effect, because Republicans worship monotheist tax god?

That 8 bucks a week thing? How can we ever thank you...

blaise

04-08-2009, 07:18 AM

Clearly, Obama has conquered Congress forever. He's converted almost all those that once opposed him and they're his for good.

RINGLEADER

04-08-2009, 08:37 AM

You mean like including tax cuts into a stimulus propsal when tax cuts have the least stimuls effect, because Republicans worship monotheist tax god?

Yes, because government spending has such a long and proven history of growing the economy.

patteeu

04-08-2009, 11:06 AM

You mean like including tax cuts into a stimulus propsal when tax cuts have the least stimuls effect, because Republicans worship monotheist tax god?

The tax cuts he included are to a large degree the opposite of the kinds of tax cuts that most conservatives would have wanted. It's fraudulent to even call some of them tax cuts.

patteeu

04-08-2009, 11:11 AM

I'm explaining the point of the article, to a rather amazing display of ignoring-the-point in favor of hurl-the-anti-obama-talking-points.

Obama can't promise the Republicans will agree to a comprimise. He can only promise to try. Which he did.

Were you making the same argument on behalf of George W. Bush six or seven years ago? My sense is that this is a new, ideologically-driven epiphany for you.

I'm quite seriously when I say that Obama's biggest mistake was including any tax cuts in his first simulus proposal. He should have gone 100% spending, and then negotiated in the 40% or so tax cuts he started with from the beginning.

He lost the ability to demonstrate for the public the concession he made from the beginning to the tax-cut-GOP.

He treated the country like they were adults and would credit him for the gesture he made without being asked.

Guys like you prove the world isn't as adult as he gave credit for. But it seems most American's think your assessment is off the mark.

If Obama is misjudging the world so badly, it appears that those of us who said he wasn't qualified to be POTUS were right afterall.